Andrew Bengry-Howell, Rose Wiles Graham Crow, Melanie Nind

1. Researching InnovationIn search of the mother of invention in an academic culture of necessityMethods@Plymouth 19th-20th 2011 Andrew Bengry-Howell, Rose Wiles Graham Crow, Melanie Nind a.bengry-howell@soton.ac.uk

2. “There is a cultural expectation of innovation and ceaseless change in the modern world caused by the market economy and the growth of the state, and one can also find this in qualitative research…no one would dispute that qualitative research is a consumer product and has to be marketed to mass audiences, nor that as researchers we need to demonstrate innovation in grant proposals, and in other activities and that these organizational and cultural pressures have intensified in recent times…This, however, still leaves a number of questions both about the nature of innovation in qualitative research and about how one should respond…It also raises the question of how we should respond to institutional or commercial pressures to innovate, and how to assess new developments and advances.” Travers (2009)

3. Defining methodological innovation • Varying definitions but key elements: • Should be rooted in genuine attempt to improve some aspect of the research process (not just gimmickry or innovation for innovation sake) • Can comprise developments to established methods as well as new methods • Should (arguably) be some level of dissemination, acceptance and take-up in the social science community (but process slow …) • (Travers, 2009; Coffey and Taylor, 2008)

4. Studying innovation • Part of programme of research on methodological innovation being undertaken by the NCRM Hub Two studies: • A narrative literature review (2009-2010) • Innovation case-studies (2010-2011) • Brief summary of findings (study one) • Preliminary findings/emerging themes (study two)

5. Research questions • What is methodological innovation? • What are the antecedents to specific innovations? • How have/do disciplines responded to them? • How have the methods been publicised and promoted; what impact has this had on their uptake?

6. Study 1 - Innovation in qualitative research methods:A narrative literature review

7. Study 1: Narrative Literature Review (2009-2010) • Social sciences’ bibliographic databases searched for ‘method’ or ‘qualitative’. 14 journals identified. • Journal contents searched using innovat*, new, novel and emerg* in the title or abstract. • Authors’ self-definition of innovation, through the use of ‘novel’, ‘new’, ‘innovative’ or ‘innovation’ • Filtered for relevance (n=57) • Categorised by area/topic • Categorised by type of claim [Inception (n=32); Adaptation (n=6); Adoption (n=19)]

8. Findings: topics coveredSeven topics were identified:

9. Findings: innovation type • Authors rarely defined what they meant by innovation • Their narratives suggested three categories of claims: • Inception (n=32) • Adaptation (n=6) • Adoption (n=19) • Closer analysis of ‘innovation’ at inception level revealed over-claiming • Majority of ‘innovations’ involve adapting SS methods or transferring & adapting methods from other disciplines

10. Study 2 - Innovation Case Studies

11. Study 2: Innovation case studies(2010-2011) • What is the process whereby an innovation is developed? • How is it publicised, promoted and disseminated? • Who are the key ‘champions’? • Who are the ‘early adopters’? • What is the uptake in the core discipline … in different disciplines? • Has it been adapted? • To what extent does the innovation address important methodological challenges (is it really an innovation?) ????

12. The Cases Online/Virtual ethnography … Netnography Robert Kozinets Creative methods … Lego Serious Play David Gauntlett Child-led research … Children as Researchers Mary Kellett

13. Methods Semi-structured interviews: • Developers of the method/methodological approach • Champions/supporters of method/approach • Established academic in topic area • Early career user of method/approach • User from different discipline to the innovator • User from different country to the innovator • Author of book review

14. Methods Exploration of Literature: Social sciences’ bibliographic databases searched for published journal articles/conference papers, in which: (a) Method/approach is applied/adapted/discussed/ referred to/related book reviewed (b) Method/approach is specifically linked to innovators we are studying. (c) Innovators are not authors/co-authors, or otherwise linked to instance of uptake.

15. Rationale for the innovationNew/more effective tools for the 21st century

16. Netnography (Robert Kozinets)

17. Child-led Research (Mary Kellett)

18. Creative Methods (David Gauntlett)

19. An ‘organic’ process of development and acceptance • Organic process: ‘I didn’t set out to invent method’ (RK); ‘accidental discovery’ (DG) • Support and encouragement – ‘big names’; senior colleagues; established professors; academic champions: ‘you should definitely keep doing that’ (RK); ‘empowering professor’ (MK) • A journey – from ‘abyss of cynicism’ (MK) to ‘academic legitimation’ (RK); addressing critiques; theoretical bolstering; promotion/dissemination – web sites (being ‘out there’)

20. “I don’t think you go searching and seeking innovation necessarily… it’s asking good questions about stuff that’s really happening right now…and if you, if you can’t answer it then you’re gonna have to innovate. And find a way to figure out how you’re gonna answer that. That’s where innovation comes from. Necessity’s the mother of invention.” Robert Kozinets (12.01.11) “I mean, no-one likes to sit around on a park bench and say I’m an innovator…but…since you ask…I do think, it’s, it’s pushing the way in which we do qualitative research in a particular, more innovative direction. And there does seem to quite a lot of, what you might call, complacency about using sort of the tried and tested tools that we already have.” David Gauntlett (18.01.11)

21. Constituting/Preserving the innovation • Coining a distinctive name • Set of procedures to be followed/clear procedural guidelines (RK); stage-process (DG); specific training programme (MK) • Books (training manuals) • Teaching method to students; business clients (RK) • Comprehensive training programme for children and adults (MK) • Workshops: Learn about the process by doing the process (DG)

22. Academic response to innovations • Common theme – gradual/incremental process • Distinct profile for each case Netnography – 148 citations; applied – marketing, business (75%) Child-led research – 87 citations; referred/referenced – education (38%), childhood studies, social sciences. Creative Research Methods – 38 citations; referred/referenced – media studies (23%), education, health. Applied – early career researchers.

23. What makes an innovation? Primary conditions • Dissatisfaction with existing methods/approach • Identification of new phenomena • Opportunity to develop something new • Innovation must address ‘need’ (individual/social science). • Innovation must be feasible/workable/accessible

24. What makes an innovation? Secondary Conditions • Marketing of innovation – publications, training, web sites etc. • Evaluation – response/received • Academic legitimacy • Uptake • Duration

25. Are our cases innovations? • ‘New’ (and to a degree) distinctive approaches • Address specific methodological issue • Evidence of uptake/acceptance/legitimacy BUT • Claims to distinctiveness a problem (similar approaches) • Unique attributes hard to assess • Durability unknowable